Posted on 03/18/2010 7:11:58 AM PDT by AIM Freeper
Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html
If it were ONLY pot, violent trouble would be unlikely. A question would immediately arise whether other forbidden items were being consumed too, some of which really can temporarily turn a person into a violent monster. And that still doesn’t answer the public health question.
I agree that coke and meth and heroin should remain controlled. But there are a lot of people who only use pot and nothing stronger, it’s stupid to target them.
I would agree that pot fears were oversold with “Reefer Madness” and the like, but even without that, pot probably wouldn’t have survived for more than another couple decades or so given the advent of other things catching gummit attention (like LSD). I would be willing to cut the Gordian knot by putting the matter under the supervision of physicians; any formerly banned (or simply FDA unapproved) drug may be administered IF the physician takes reasonable responsibility for the results. This is assuming we are spared Bummercare.
I see where you are coming from, certainly most reasonable people can see that drugs like meth and PCP aren’t fit for human consumption and can turn a person into a raving lunatic. However, we’ve outlawed these substances and many others, and pursued enforcement so aggressively that we have sometimes sidestepped civil liberties in the name of ending this “menace”. Perhaps if those measures actually did get the job done and stamped out use of these drugs, they might be justifiable. As it stands though, it doesn’t seem like there are any measures short of a Soviet-style police state that will really stop the folks that intend to use them from doing so.
That being said, I can’t see how it is justifiable any longer to continue to use such questionable tactics when they aren’t producing the intended results. There may be better strategies to curb these drugs that our government refuses to consider because they are locked into the “drug war” mentality, and also I’m sure we can think of better ways to use the billions of the taxpayer’s money that are poured down this black hole every year.
Something like this would also make sense at a state level, where there are drugs that they do not wish to bless just being able to get it from the corner pharmacy with an Rx.
Sure, if a state wishes to do it that way. Suppose a state decides to regulate marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol, and allows it to be sold at liquor and tobacco shops. Should fedgov have any say-so in the matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.